v  o  ♦  vn 


AMERICANISM 


SPEECH 

OF 

HON.  WILLIAM  E.  BORAH 

OF  IDAHO 

IN  THE 

SENATE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 


FRIDAY 

FEBRUARY  21,  1919 


% 


WASHINGTON 

GOVERNMENT  PRINTING  OFFICE 

1919 


1C6587—19309 


SPEECH 


OF 

HON.  WILLIAM  E.  BORAH. 


Mr.  BORAH.  Mr.  President,  tlie  people  of  the  United  States 
have  the  undoubted  right  to  change  their  form  of  government  and 
to  renounce  established  customs  or  long-standing  policies  when¬ 
ever  in  their  wisdom  they  see  fit  to  do  so.  As  a  believer  in 
democratic  government,  I  readily  acknowledge  the  right  of  the 
people  to  make  in  an- orderly  fashion  such  changes  as  may  be 
approved  by  their  judgment  at  any  time.  I  contend,  moreover, 
that  when  radical  and  important  departures  from  established 
national  policies  are  proposed,  the  people  ought  to  be  consulted. 

We  are  now  proposing  what  to  my  mind  is  the  most  radical 
departure  from  our  policies  hitherto  obtaining  that  has  ever  been 
proposed  at  any  time  since  our  Government  was  established.  I 
think  the  advocates  of  the  league  will  agree  with  me  that  it  is 
a  pronounced  departure  from  all  the  policies  which  we  have 
heretofore  obtained.  ' 

It  may  be  wise,  as  they  contend ;  nevertheless,  it  involves  a 
different  course  of  conduct  upon  the  part  of  the  Government 
and  of  our  people  for  the  future,  and  the  people  are  entitled 
to  pass  judgment  upon  the  advisability  of  such  a  course. 

It  seems  clear,  also,  that  this  proposed  program,  if  it  is  to 
be  made  effective  and  operative  under  the  proposed  constitu¬ 
tion  of  the  league,  involves  a  change  in  our  Constitution.  Cer¬ 
tainly,  questions  of  that  kind  ought  to  be  submitted  to  a 
plebiscite  or  to  a  vote  of  the  people,  and  the  Constitution 
amended  in  the  manner  provided  for  amending  that  instru¬ 
ment.  We  are  merely  agents  of  the  people ;  and  it  will  not 
be  contended  that  we  have  received  any  authority  from  the 
principal,  the  people,  to  proceed  along  this  line.  It  is  a  greater 
responsibility  than  an  agent  ought  to  assume  without 'express 
authority  or  approval  from  his  principal  to  say  nothing  of  the 
want  of  authority.  Preliminary  to  a  discussion  of  this  ques¬ 
tion,  therefore,  I  want  to  declare  my  belief  that  we  should 
arrange  the  machinery  for  taking  a  vote  of  the  people  of  the 
United  States  upon  this  stupendous  program.  I  am  aware 
that  the  processes  by  which  that  may  be  accomplished  involve 
some  difficulties ;  but  they  are  not  insurmountable,  and  they 
are  by  no  means  to  be  compared  in  their  difficulty  with  the 
importance  of  being  right,  and  in  harmony  with  the  judgment 
of  the  people  before  we  proceed  to  a  final  approval.  —W e  should 
have  the  specific  indorsement  of  those  whose  agents  we  are 
and  we  should  have  the  changes  in  our  Constitution  that  we 
may  have  sanction  under  the  Constitution  for  the  fearful  re¬ 
sponsibility  we  propose  to  assume.  If.  we  can  effectuate  this 
change  now  proposed  without  direct  authority  from  the  people 
2  106587—19309 


3 

I  can  not  think  of  a  question  of  sufficient  moment  to  call  for 
their  indorsement. 

It  must  be  conceded  that  this  program  can  never  be  a  success 
unless  there  is  behind  it  the  intelligent  and  sustained  public 
opinion  of  the  United  States.  If  the  voters  do  not  have  their 
voice  before  the  program  is  initiated,  they  will  certainly  have 
an  opportunity  to  give  expression  to  their  views  in  the  future. 
They  are  still  the  source  of  power,  and  through  their  votes  they 
effectuate  the  policies  under  which  we  must  live.  From  the 
standpoint,  therefore,  of  expediency  and  from  the  standpoint  of 
fairness  to  those  who  are  most  concerned,  to  wit,  the  people, 
those  who  must  carry  the  burdens,  if  there  be  burdens,  and 
suffer  the  consequences,  if  there  should  be  ill  consequences  to 
suffer,  as  well  as  from  the  standpoint  of  insuring  success,  if 
possible,  the  mass  of  the  people  ought  to  be  consulted  and  their 
approval  had  before  we  proceed.  I,  therefore,  in  the  very  be¬ 
ginning  of  this  procedure,  declare  in  favor  of  that  program. 

Mr.  President,  I  think  I.  should  have  deferred  any  remarks 
I  had  to  make  upon  this  subject  until  a  later  day,  had  it  not 
been  for  an  interview  which  was  put  out  by  Mr.  Taft  some 
two  or  three  days  ago  upon  this  question.  I  felt,  in  view  of 
that  statement,  that  those  who  were  opposed  to  the  program 
were  justified  in  proceeding  at  once  to  the  debate,  because  it  is 
a  statement  which  in  my  judgment  is  not  founded  upon  fact. 
In  saying  that  I  do  not  charge  a  conscious  purpose  upon  the 
part  of  Mr.  Taft  to  mislead,  but  I  am  sure  it  can  not  be  sus¬ 
tained  by  the  historic  facts  at  the  command  of  anyone  who 
desires  to  examine  the  subject ;  and  as  it  can  not  be  sustained, 
it  is  to  the  utmost  degree  misleading. 

Mr.  Taft  informs  the  American  people,  from  the  pedestal  of 
an  ex-President,  that  this  program  does  not  destroy  the  policy 
announced  by  Washington  in  his  Farewell  Address  and  does 
not  renounce  the  doctrine  known  as  the  Monroe  doctrine — two 
fundamental  principles  underlying  our  foreign  policy  for  more 
than  100  years  in  one  instance  and  nearly  100  years  in  the 
other;  two  policies  to  which  the  American  people  have  long 
been  committed,  and  which,  in  my  judgment,  they  still  believe 
to  be  indispensable  to  their  happiness  and  future  tranquillity. 
If,  indeed,  this  program  does  dispose  of  these  policies,  it  pre¬ 
sents  an  entirely  different  question  to  the  American  people  than 
if  the  reverse  were  true.  This  is  one  of  the  first  things  to  be 
settled  in  this  controversy.  It  meets  us  at  the  very  threshold 
of  all  discussion  and  all  consideration.  It  is  of  such  moment 
as  to  call  for  clear  statement  and  candid  presentation.  What  is 
the  effect  of  this  proposed  program  upon  these  ancient  and  most 
vital  policies? 

Mr.  Taft  says: 

Article  10  covers  the  Monroe  doctrine  and  extends  it  to  the  world. 
*  *  *  The  league  is  to  be  regarded  as  in  conflict  with  the  advice 
of  Washington  only  with  a  narrow  and  reactionary  viewpoint. 

“  Reactionary  ”  is  not  a  familiar  term  in  the  ex-President’s 
vocabulary.  I  think  he  has  unintentionally  misused  it. 

Mr.  President,  prior  to  the  administration  of  Washington, 
America  had  been  involved  in  every  European  war  since  coloni¬ 
zation  began.  When  a  difficulty  arose  in  Europe,  whatever 
might  be  the  subject  of  the  difficulty,  whether  dynastic  quarrels 
or  territorial  aggrandizement,  it  spread  at  once  to  the  American 
100587—19309 


4 


Continent.  Although  we  might  be  wholly  unconcerned  in  the 
controversy  upon  its  merits,  nevertheless  the  evil  effects  of  the 
conflict  in  Europe  enveloped  the  people  of  this  country  in  its 
consequences.  As  you  recall,  Macaulay,  in  his  graphic  way  in 
the  essay  upon  Frederick  the  Great,  said : 

In  order  that  he  might  rob  a  neighbor  whom  he  had  promised  to  de- 
fend,  black  men  fought  on  the  coast  of  Coromandel  and  red  men 
scalped  each  other  by  the  Great  ‘Lakes  of  North  America. 

When  Washington  assumed  the  responsibilities  as  adminis¬ 
trator  of  this  Government,  he  immediately  set  about  to  change 
that  condition  of  affairs ;  to  wit,  to  separate  the  European  sys¬ 
tem  from  the  American  system,  to  withdraw  our  people  from 
her  broils,  to  individualize  the  American  Nation,  and  to  divorce 
us  from  the  quarrels  and  turmoils  of  European  life.  This  was 
peculiarly  and  distinctly  a  policy  originating  with  the  Father- 
of  our  Country.  If  there  is  any  one  thing  in  his  entire  career, 
marvelous  as  it  was,  which  can  be  said  to  be  distinctly  his,  it 
is  the  foreign  policy  which  characterized  his  administration. 
His  idea  almost  alone  in  the  first  instance  was  that  we  never 
could  become  a  nation  with  a  national  mind,  a  national  pur¬ 
pose,  and  national  ideals,  until  we  divorced  ourselves  from  the 
European  system.  He  entertained  this  view  before  he  became 
President.  I  venture  to  recall  to  your  minds  a  letter  which 
he  wrote,  prior  to  the  presidency,  to  Sir  Edward  Newenham,  in 
which  he  says : 

I  hope  the  United  States  of  America  will  be  able  to  keep  disengaged 
from  tbe  labyrinth  of  European  politics  and  wars.  *  *  *  It  should 
be  the  policy  of  the  United  States  to  administer  to  their  wants  with¬ 
out  being  engaged  in  their  quarrels. 

In  1791  he  addressed  a  letter  to  Mr.  Morris,  in  which  he  said : 

I  trust  we  shall  never  so  far  lose  sight  of  our  own  interest  and 
happiness  as  to  become  unnecessarily  a  party  to  these  political  disputes. 
Our  local  situation  enables  us  to  maintain  that  state  with  respect  to 
them  which  otherwise  could  not,  perhaps,  be  preserved  by  human 
wisdom. 

The  author  from  whom  I  quote,  Senator  Lodge,  commenting 
upon  this,  says : 

The  world  was  told  that  a  new  power  had  come  into  being,  which 
meant  to  hold  aloof  from  Europe,  and  which  took  no  interest  in  the 
balance  of  power  or  the  fate  of  dynasties,  but  looked  only  to  the  wel¬ 
fare  of  its  own  people  and  to  tbe  conquest  and  mastery-of  a  continent 
as  its  allotted  tasks.  The  policy  declared  by  the  proclamation  was 
purely  American  in  its  conception,  and  severed  ■  the  colonial  tradition 
at  a  stroke. 

I  digress  to  say  I  wish  every  boy  and  girl  over  the  age  of 
15  years  could  be  induced  to  read  the  brilliant  story  of  Wash¬ 
ington  as  it  is  found  in  those  two  volumes.  If  they  were  not 
better  Americans,  with  higher  ideals,  after  they  had  read  it, 
nothing  could  make  them  so. 

Again,  Mr.  President,  in  a  letter  to  Patrick  Henry,  dated 
later,  he  says: 

I  can  most  religiously  aver  that  I  have  no  wish  that  is  incompatible 
with  the  dignity,  happiness,  and  true  interest  of  the  people  of  this 
country.  My  ardent  desire  is,  and  my  aim  has  been,  so  far  as  de¬ 
pendent  on  the  executive  department,  to  comply  strictly  with  all  our 
engagements,  foreign  and  domestic,  but  to  keep  the  United-  States 
free  from  any  political  connections  with  every  other  country,  to  see  it 
independent  of  all,  and  Tinder  the  influence  of  none.  In  a  word,  I 
want  an  American  character,  that  the  powers  of  Europe  may  be 
convinced  that  we  act  for  ourselves. 

Pursuing  this  thought  and  this  great  principle  throughout  his 
administration  until  he  had  fairly  established  it  as  a  part  of 
106587—19309 


5 


our  foreign  policy — tlie  initiatory  step  of  the  same — he  referred 
particularly  to  it  in  his  Farewell  Address.  I  shall  detain  the 
Senate  by  reading  a  single  paragraph  only.  This  was  the  con¬ 
clusion  of  Washington  after  years  of  observation,  after  the 
most  pointed  experience,  after  eight  years  of  administration  of 
public  affairs,  and  with  as  wide  a  vision  and  with  as  far- 
seeing  a  vision  as  ever  accompanied  a  human  mind  upon  this 
mundane  sphere : 

Why  quit  our  own  to  stand  upon  foreign  ground?  Why,  by  inter¬ 
weaving  our  destiny  with  that  of  any  part  of  Europe,  entangle  our 
peace  and  prosperity  in  the  toils  of  European  ambition,  rivalship,  in¬ 
terest,  humor,  or  caprice? 

Are  there  people  in  this  day  who  believe  that  Europe  now 
and  in  the  future  shall  be  free  of  selfishness,  of  rivalship,  of 
humor,  of  ambition,  of  caprice?  If  not,  are  we  not  undertak¬ 
ing  the  task  against  which  the  Father  of  our  Country  warned 
when  he  bade  farewell  to  public  service?  “  Why  quit  our  own 
to  stand  upon  foreign  ground?”  And  yet  in  this  proposed 
league  of  nations,  in  the  very  beginning,  we  are  advised  of  an 
executive  council  which  shall  dominate  and  control  its  action, 
three  members  of  which  are  Europeans,  one  member  Asiatic, 
and  one  American. 

If  a  controversy  ever  arises  in  which  there  is  a  conflict  be¬ 
tween  the  European  system  and  the  American  system,  or  if  a 
conflict  ever  arises  in  which  their  interests,  their  humor,  their 
caprice,  and  their  selfishness  shall  attempt  to  dominate  the 
situation,  shall  we  not  have  indeed  quit  our  own  to  stand  upon 
foreign  ground? 

Why  should  we  interweave  our  destiny  with  the  European 
destiny?  Are  wTe  not  interweaving  our  future  and  our  destiny 
'with  European  powers  when  we  join  a  league  of  nations  the 
constitution  of  which  gives  a  majority  vote  in  every  single  in¬ 
stance  in  which  the  league  can  ever  be  called  into  action  to 
European  powers? 

Does  the  ex-President  mean  to  say  to  an  intelligent  and 
thinking  people  that  this  league  which  thus  grants  this  power 
to  European  governments  is  not  interweaving  our  destiny  witli 
European  destiny?  Does  he  assume  to  say  that  that  is  not  a 
departure  from  the  plain  terms  of  Washington’s  Farewell  Ad¬ 
dress  ? 

I  repeat  what  I  said  upon  the  floor  of  the  Senate  a  few  w’eeks 
<•  ,o.  It  may  be  that  the  people  of  America  want  to  do  this ;  it 
may  be  that  they  think  their  future  happiness  and  tranquility 
necessitates  their  doing  it,  but  I  inveigh  against  the  misleading 
statement  that  we  do  not  propose  to  do  it  by  this  league  of 
nations.  Let  us  be  candid  with  those  upon  whom  must  rest  the 
future  burdens  and  obligations  and  not  undertake  to  advise 
them  that  that  is  not  going  to  happen  which  must  necessarily 
and  inevitably  happen. 

Mr.  President,  Washington  succeeded  in  establishing  the 
policy  that  we  should  not  interfere  in  European  affairs.  It 
would  have  served  no  good  purpose  and  would  not  have  been 
beneficial  to  the  American  people  in  the  least  had  we  simply 
remained  aloof  from  European  affairs  but  had  permitted  Europe 
to  transfer  her  system  to  the  American  Continent.  Therefore, 
the  Monroe  doctrine.  It  was  designed  to  support  the  policy  of 
Washington.  He  had  warned  against  the  danger  of  entering 
106587—19309 


6 


Europe— the  Monroe  doctrine  declared  that  Europe  should  not 
enter  America.  Permit  me  to  say  that  one  of  these  can  not 
stand,  in  my  judgment,  without  the  support  of  the  other.  It  is 
an  inevitable  result  of  Washington’s  teaching  that  the  Monroe 
doctrine  should  exist.  Indeed,  such  men  as  Mr.  Coudert  the 
gieat  lawyer,  say  that  Washington’s  policy  incorporated  and  in¬ 
cluded  the  Monroe  doctrine ;  that  Monroe’s  statement  was 
snnpiy  an  exemplification  and  application  of  the  principle. 

So,  sir,  in  order  that  we  might  become  a  nation  free  from 
European  broils  and  cease  forever  to  have  to  do  with  European 
affairs,  the  Washington  policy  and  the  Monroe  doctrine  were 
announced  and  have  ever  since  been  maintained.  The  <weat 
question  now  is,  are  they  policies  which  we  should  still  main¬ 
tain  ;  are  they  in  all  essential  particulars  still  indispensable  to 
oui  well-being  as  a  people  and  to  our  strength  and  permanency 
as  a  nation  ?  The  present  war  has  drawn  us  to  Europe,  but  only 
temporarily.  The  question  shall  we  enter  European  affairs 
permanently  and  shall  we  invite  Europe,  with  her  systems  of 
government,  some  more  pernicious  than  in  the  days  of  Washing¬ 
ton,  to  America.  We  had  a  temporary  alliance  with  France 
when  Washington  became  President,  but  he  fought  against  the 
making  of  these  alliances  permanent.  That  is  the  question  here. 

What  is  the  Monroe  doctrine?  I  apologize  to  the  Senate  for 
going  into  that  question.  I  do  so  more  for  others  than  my  col¬ 
leagues,  but  I  will  be  brief.  Before  the  exigencies  arising  out 
of  the  conditions  connected  with  a  defense  of  this  league  it 
would  not  have  been  necessary  to  discuss  it.  All  understood  it 
alike.  The  Monroe  doctrine  is  simply  the  principle  of  self- 
defense  applied  to  a  people,  and  the  principle  of  self-defense 
can  not  be  the  subject  of  arbitration  or  of  enforcement  by  any 
one  other  than  that  one  who  is  to  claim  and  enforce  the  principle 
of  self-defense. 

The  ex-President  said  the  Monroe  doctrine  is  covered  and 
extended  to  the  world.  That  was  the  condition  before  Monroe 
announced  it?  The  world  was  one.  Monroe  determined  to  sep¬ 
arate  it  and  divide  it,  and  that  was  the  very  object  of  it.  It  was 
a  distinct  announcement  that  the  European  system  could  not  be 
transferred  to  America.  The  rest  was  simply  detail.  It  was 
the  division  of  two  systems;  it  was  the  political  partition  of 
two  continents.  Monroe  or  Jefferson  never  would  have  contem¬ 
plated  for  a  moment  sharing  the  enforcement  of  the  Monroe 
doctrine  with  any  nation  of  Europe.  We  would  not  even  join 
with  England  in  announcing  it. 

May  I  read  here  in  connection  with  my  remarks  a  statement 
by  ex-Senator  Boot  upon  this  particular  feature?  Before  I  do 
that,  however,  I  desire  to  call  attention  to  the  language  of 
Thomas  Jefferson.  It  precedes  the  remark  which  I  was  about 
to  make.  This  letter  of  Jefferson  states  as  clearly  as  can 
be  stated  the  prime  object  of  the  announcement  of  this  doctrine : 

The  question  presented  by  the  letters  you  have  sent  me  is  the  most 
momentous  which  has  ever  been  offered  to  my  contemplation  since  that 
of  independence. 

Why  does  the  Sage  of  Monticello  rank  the  Monroe  doctrine 
next  to  the  Declaration  of  Independence?  Because  he  believed 
as  that  genius  of  constructive  government,  Hamilton,  believed, 
and  Washington  believed,  that  we  could  not  maintain  our  inde¬ 
pendence  without  the  Monroe  doctrine.  He  believed  that  it  was 
106587—19309 


7 


an  indispensable  pillar  to  our  national  independence,  and  second 
only  to  it  in  the  catalogue  of  responsibilities  and  duties  and 
obligations  which  rested  upon  us : 

That  made  us  a  nation. 

This  sets  our  compass  and  points  the  course  which  we  are  to  steer 
through  the  ocean  of  time  opening  on  us.  And  never  could  we  em¬ 
bark  upon  it  under  circumstances  more  auspicious.  Our  first  and 
fundamental  maxim  should  he  never  to  entangle  ourselves  in  the  broils 
of  Europe  ; 

The  Washington  policy — 

our  second,  never  to  suffer  Europe  to  intermeddle  with  cis-Atlantic 
affairs. 

Yet  the  ex-President  says  notwithstanding  this  we  carry  out 
this  discrimination  and  distinction  between  European  affairs 
and  American  affairs  when  we  permit  the  two  systems  to  fee 
united,  to  be  organized  and  administered  by  a  common  author¬ 
ity.  He  declares  that  although  we  do  entangle  ourselves  in 
the  broils  of  Europe,  although  we  do  suffer  Europe  to  intermed¬ 
dle  with  cis-Atlantic  affairs,  it  is  not  in  conflict  with  the  Mon¬ 
roe  doctrine. 

I  now  call  your  attenttion  to  the  statement  of  Senator  Root 
upon  the  proposition  advanced  by  the  ex-President — of  shar¬ 
ing  with  other  nations  responsibility  in  enforcing  this  doctrine. 
Mr.  Root  says : 

Since  the  Monroe  doctrine  is  a  declaration  based  upon  this  Nation's 
right  of  self-protection,  it  can  not  be  transmuted  into  a  joint  or  com¬ 
mon  declaration  by  American  States  or  any  number  of  them. 

We  could  not  even  share  the  responsibility  and  the  execution 
of  the  Monroe  doctrine  with  our  Commonwealths  here  upon  the 
Western  Continent.  It  is  personal ;  it  is  individual ;  it  is  the 
law  of  self-defense.  It  belongs  to  us,  and  we  alone  must  deter¬ 
mine  when  it  shall  be  enforced  or  when  it  shall  not  apply.  It 
is  the  same  rule  and  principle  which  Australia  invokes,  and 
correctly  invokes,  with  reference  to  the  German  islands  near 
Australia.  It  is  the  same  principle  which  Japan  sought  to  have 
established  in  the  Orient.  It  is  the  principle  of  self-defense 
and  not  of  common  defense,  or  defense  by  common  authority 
invoked  and  sustained  by  the  joint  act  of  many  nations. 

Yet  we  are  solemnly  advised  that  although  we  should  share  it 
with  all  the  Governments  of  Europe  and  Asia  and  all  the  tribes 
of  the  different  races  which  may  in  the  future  be  organized 
into  some  form  of  government,  it  is  still  the  doctrine  of  self- 
defense  which  Jefferson  and  Monroe  announced  and  which  Mr. 
Root  so  clearly  explained. 

I  read  another  paragraph  from  Mr.  Root’s  speech,  which 
leaves  nothing  further  to  be  said  both  as  to  the  meaning  and 
the  worth  of  this  policy: 

The  familiar  paragraphs  of  Washington’s  Farewell  Address  upon  this 
subject  were  not  rhetoric.  They  were  intensely  practical  rules  of  con¬ 
duct  for  the  future  guidance  of  the  country  : 

“  Europe  has  a  set  of  primary  interests  which  to  us  have  none,  or 
a  very  remote,  relation.  Hence,  she  must  be  engaged  in  frequent  con¬ 
troversies,  the  causes  of  which  are  essentially  foreign  to  our  concerns. 
Hence,  therefore,  it  must  be  unwise  in  us  to  implicate  ourselves,  by 
artificial  ties,  in  the  ordinary  vicissitudes  of  her  politics,  or  the  ordinary 
combinations  and  collisions  of  her  friendships  or  enmities.  Our  de¬ 
tached  and  distant  situation  invites  and  enables  us  to  pursue  a  different 
course.” 

It  was  the  same  instinct  which  led  Jefferson,  in  the  letter  to  Mon¬ 
roe  already  quoted,  to  say  : 

“  Our  first  and  fundamental  maxim  should  be,  never  to  entangle 
ourselves  in  the  broils  of  Europe  ;  our  second,  never  to  suffer  Europe 
to  intermeddle  with  cisatlantic  affairs.” 

106587—19309 


8 


The  concurrence  of  Washington  and  Hamilton  and  Jefferson  in  the 
declaration  of  this  principle  of  action  entitles  it  to  great  respect. 
*  *  *  Separation  of  influences  as  absolute  and  complete  as  pos¬ 

sible  was  the  remedy  which  the  wisest  of  Americans  agreed  upon. 
It  was  one  of  the  primary  purposes  of  Monroe’s  declaration  to  insist 
upon  this  separation,  and  to  accomplish  it  he  drew  the  line  at  the 
water’s  edge.  The  problem  of  national  protection  in  the  distant  fu¬ 
ture  is  one  not  to  be  solved  by  the  first  impressions  of  the  casual 
observer,  but  only  by  profound  study  of  the  forces  which,  in  the  long 
life  of  nations,  work  out  results.  In  this  case  the  results  of  such  a 
study  by  the  best  men  of  the  formative  period  of  the  United  States 
are  supported  by  the  instincts  of  the  American  democracy  holding 
steadily  in  one  direction  for  almost  a  century.  The  problem  has  not 
changed  essentially.  If  the  declaration  of  Monroe  was  right  when 
the  message  was  sent,  it  is  right  now. 

We  come  now  to  the  constitution  of  the  proposed  league  of 
nations,  which  has  been  submitted  to  us.  I  shall  not  undertake 
to  go  into  details ;  indeed,  time  would  not  permit  to  take  up 
the  many  different  phases  which  this  constitution  presents  for 
consideraion.  I  want  only  to  call  attention  to  some  features 
of  it  bearing  upon  this  particular  subject  matter — that  is,  the 
effect  it  has  upon  these  two  great  policies. 

The  mere  reading  of  the  constitution  of  the  league  will  con¬ 
vince  any  reasonable  mind,  any  unprejudiced  mind,  that  if  put 
into  effect  the  policy  of  Washington  and  the  policy  of  Monroe 
must  depart.  The  propositions  are  irreconcilable  and  can  not 
exist  together.  In  the  first  place,  the  league  provides  for  an 
organization  composed  principally  of  five  great  nations,  three  of 
them  European,  one  Asiatic,  and  one  American.  Every  policy 
determined  upon  by  the  league  and  every  movement  made  by  it 
could  be,  and  might  be,  controlled  solely  by  European  powers, 
whether  the  matter  dealt  with  had  reference  to  America  or 
Europe.  The  league  nowhere  distinguishes  or  discriminates 
between  European  and  American  affairs.  It  functions  in  one 
continent  the  same  as  another.  It  compounds  ail  three  conti¬ 
nents  into  a  single  unit,  so  far  as  the  operations  of  the  league 
are  concerned.  The  league  interferes  in  European  affairs  and 
in  American  affairs  upon  the  same  grounds  and  for  the  same 
reasons.  If  the  territorial  integrity  of  any  member  of  the 
league  is  threatened  or  involved,  whether  that  territory  be  in 
America  or  Europe,  the  league  deals  with  the  subject.  If  it 
becomes  necessary  for  the  league  to  act  through  economic  pres¬ 
sure,  or  finally  through  military  power,  although  the  procedure 
may  be  voted  by  European  powers  alone,  it  may  exert  that 
pressure  in  America  the  same  as  in  Europe.  The  very  object 
and  purpose  of  the  league  is  to  eliminate  all  differences  between 
Europe  and  America  and  place  all  in  a  common  liability  to  be 
governed  and  controlled  by  a  common  authority.  If  the  United 
States,  for  instance,  should  disregard  its  covenants,  as  provided 
in  the  league,  it  would  be  deemed  to  have  committed  an  act  of 
war  against  all  other  members  of  the  league ;  and  under  our  sol¬ 
emn  obligation  and  agreement  we  would  have  authorized  the 
European  powers  to  wage  war  against  us  and  upon  the  American 
Continent.  And  yet  men  deliberately  and  blandly  state  to  the 
American  people  that  this  league  constitution  preserves  the 
Monroe  doctrine  and  the  doctrine  given  us  by  Washington. 

I  read  from  article  10  as  an  illustration : 

Tlie  high  contracting  parties  shall  undertake  to  respect  and  preserve 
as  against  external  aggression  the  territorial  existence  and  existing 
political  independence  of  all  States  members  of  the  league. 

1065S7— 13S09 


Q 


9 


Take  for  illustration  one  of  our  own  associates  and  allies. 
England  has  possessions  in  three  continents.  As  has  been  said, 
the  sun  never  sets  upon  her  possessions.  They  dot  every  sea 
and  are  found  in  every  land.  She  to-day  holds  possession  of 
one-fifth  of  the  habitable  globe,  and  we  in  article  10  guarantee 
the  integrity  of  her  possessions  in  the  three  continents  of  the 
earth. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  Will  the  Senator  state  what  he  is  read¬ 
ing  from? 

Mr.  BORAH.  I  am  reading  from  article  10  of  the  constitu¬ 
tion  of  the  league. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  That  is  not  the  language'  of  article  10  as 
printed  in  the  Senate  document  at  the  request  of  the  Senator 
from  Massachusetts  [Mr.  LoDqp].  There  is  nothing  said  about 
possessions  there  at  all. 

Mr.  BORAH.  Did  I  read  possessions? 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I  understood  the  Senator  to  say  pos¬ 
sessions. 

Mr.  BORAH.  No ;  I  think  the  Senator  is  mistaken.  I  will 
read  it  again : 


The  high  contracting  parties  shall  undertake  to  respect  and  preserve 
as  against  external  aggression  the  territorial  integrity  and  existing 
political  independence  of  all  States  members  of  the  league. 


Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  That  is  correct. 

Mr.  BORAH.  I  presume  that  her  territorial,  integrity  neces¬ 
sarily  involves  her  territorial  possessions. 

So,  Mr.  President,  the  first  obligation  which  we  assume  is  to“ 
protect  the  territorial  integrity  of  the  British  Empire.  That 
takes  us  into  every  tJart  of  the  civilized  world.  That  is  the 
most  radical  departure  from  fhe  Washington  policy.  I  will 
come  to  the  Monroe  policy  in  a  minute.  Now,  how  are  we  to 
determine  that? 


In  case  of  any  such  aggression  or  in  case  of  any  threat  or  danger 
of  such  aggression  the  executive  council  shall  advise  upon  the  means 
by  which  the  obligation  shall  be  fulfilled. 


Does  that  mean  what  it  says,  and  is  it  to  be  executed  in  ac¬ 
cordance  with  its  plain  terms?  If  the  territorial  integrity  of 
any  part  of  the  British  Empire  shall  be  threatened  not  the  Con¬ 
gress  of  the  United  States,  not  the  people  of  the  United  States, 
not  the  Government  of  the  United  States  determines  what  shall 
be  done,  but  the  executive  council  of  which  the  American 
people  have  one  member.  We,  if  we  mean  what  we  say  in  this 
constitution,  are  pledging  ourselves,  our  honor,  our  sacred  lives, 
to  the  preservation  of  the  territorial  possessions  the  world  over 
and  not  leaving  it  to  the  judgment  and  sense  of  the  American 
people  but  to  the  diplomats  of  Europe. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  The  Senator  again  uses  the  words  “  terri¬ 
torial  possessions.”  That  is  what  I  am  objecting  to. 

Mr.  BORAH.  Mr.  President,  I  will  leave  it  to  an  intelligent 
audience  to  determine  whether  or  not  “territorial  integrity” 
does  not  include  “  territorial  possessions.” 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  If  the  Senator  will  refer  to  article  7, 
the  indications  are  there  that  the  dominions  of  the  British  Em¬ 
pire  are  to  be  regarded  as  separate  and  independent  self-govern¬ 
ing  countries. 

Mr.  BORAH.  Mr.  President,  I  am  coming  to  that  in  a  few 
moments.  I  admire  the  careful  use  of  language  by  the  Senator 
106587—19309 


10 


from  Nebraska  when  he  says  there  are  “  indications.”  This  con¬ 
stitution  is  prolific  indeed  of  “  indications.” 

That  is  the  duty  devolving  upon  us  by  virtue. of  the  leagile, 
to  enter  European  affairs.  What  would  be  the  duty  and  the 
obligatiou  of  England,  of  France,  of  Italy,  and  of  Japan  to 
the  other  member  should  a  disturbance  arise  upon  the  Western 
Continent?  Suppose  some  threat  of  danger  to  the  Republic 
should  come  from  Mexico  or  from  Mexico  and  its  allies.  We 
are  not  even  consulted  as  to  whether  we  shall  call  in  help,  but  the 
duty  devolves  upon  the  council,  in  its  initiative  capacity,  to  at 
once  assume  jurisdiction  of  it  and  to  proceed  to  the  American 
continent  to  determine  what  its  duties  shall  be  with  reference 
to  American  affairs.  This  league  operates  upon  the  Western  Con¬ 
tinent  with  the  same  jurisdiction  and  power  and  the  same  utter 
disregard  of  which  continent  it  is  upon  as  it  does  in  the  Euro¬ 
pean  Continent.  Does  anybody  deny  that  proposition? 

Let  us  take  a  homely  illustration ;  perhaps  it  may  better  illus¬ 
trate  the  argument.  A  great  many  years  ago  a  man  by  the  name 
of  Europe  opened  a  farm.  He  begins  the  tillage  of  his  great 
farm,  but  turmoil,  strife,  and  dissension  arise  among  his  tenants. 
Finally  a  dissatisfied  European  by  the  name,  we  will  call  him, 
America,  determines  to  leave  these  turmoils  on  the  European 
farm  to  go  into  the  forest,  open  a  clearing,  and  establish  a  new 
farm.  He  says,  “  I  shall  go  where  I  can  worship  God  according 
to  the  dictates  of  my  own  conscience.  I  shall  go  where  I 
rcan  set  up  a  new  system  of  farming.”  He  goes  into  the  wilder¬ 
ness  and  sacrifices  and  finally  establishes  a  farm  of  his  own. 
After  he  has  established  it  he  declares,  after  reflection,  “  I  am 
afraid  those  Europeans  will  come  here  and  cause  me  the 
same  disturbance  and  trouble  and  establish  the  same  kind 
of  a  system  which  we  had  in  Europe ;  so  I  will  establish  a  parti¬ 
tion  fence.”  He  does  establish  a  partition  fence.  When  he 
has  finished  the  fence  he  says,  “  I  will  neither  go  to  your  farm 
nor  shall  you  come  to  mine;  I  have  had  some  experience  with 
you,  and  I  do  not  want  to  try  it  again.”  So  he  builds  an  insur¬ 
mountable  wall  or  fence  between  his  neighbor  Europe  and  him¬ 
self.  It  stands  for  a  hundred  years.  People  sit  about  and  dis¬ 
cuss  it,  and  pass  many  eulogies,  declaring  over  and  over  again 
that  it  was  one  of  the  wisest  things  that  a  farmer  ever  did.  But 
suddenly  a  new  inspiration  dawns,  and  it  is  thought  that  it 
would  be  a  good  idea  to  tear  down  the  wall  or  fence  and  to 
commingle  and  intermingle  the  systems ;  to  join  one  farm  to 
another  and  have  one  superintendent.  It  is  said  to  the  farmer 
America,  “  Let  us  tear  down  this  fence.”  He  replies  in  sur¬ 
prise  and  consternation,  “  I  built  it  for  a  purpose.”  “  Well,” 
it  is  contended  by  the  idealist,  “  we  think  it  is  better  to  tear  it 
down.”  At  this  time  there  rises  up  a  man  by  the  name  of  Wil¬ 
liam  Howard.  He  says  to  farmer  America,  “  Let  us  tear  down 
that  wall  fence  of  yours.  It  must  be  done  right  away.  Anyone 
who  opposes  can  not  be  trusted  overnight.”  The  farmer  says, 
“  I  do  not  think  it  would  be  well.”  “  But,”  William  Howard  re¬ 
plies,  “  it  is  just  the  same  after  it  is  torn  down  as  it  is  when  it 
is  standing  up.  We  are  going  to  put  a  fence  around  both  farms, 
and  that  will  be  the  same  as  a  fence  between  the  farms.”  Wil¬ 
liam  Howard  further  says,  “Let  us  go  into  partnership  with 
your  neighbor  Europe.”  America  says,  “  I  do  not  want  any 
partnership.  I  came  here  to  get  away  from  that  very  thing.” 

106587 — 19309 


11 


William  Howard  urges,  with  a  spirit  of  unselfishness  and  good 
naturedly,  “  It  is  just  the  same  without  a  partnership  as  it  is 
with  it.  Let  us  transmute  or  combine  these  two  systems  and 
make  them  one.”  “  But,”  farmer  America  says,  “  I  came  to 
this  country  to  get  away  from  that  system.  I  do  not  want  one 
system ;  I  want  two  systems.  I  do  not  like  their  system  of 
farming.”  William  Howard  replies,  “  One  system  is  just  the 
same  as  two  systems.”  He  declares,  furthermore,  “  I  know 
something  about  this;  I  ran  this  farm  for  four  years  myself 
[laughter]  ;  I  know  how  to  run  it ;  and  I  declare  to  you  that  the 
best  thing  for  you  to  do  is  to  tear  down  your  wall  fence,  to 
unite  your  two  systems,  and  make  one  farm  out  of  it  and  one 
common  overseer.”  He  further,  by  way  of  a  profound  argument, 
casually  remarks,  “  I  had  such  remarkable  success  while  I  was 
^  running  this  farm  and  received  such  universal  commendation 
upon  my  work  after  it  was  over,  having  received  the  approval 
of  2  tenants  out  of  48,  that  I  am  sure  that  I  can  run  both  farms, 
at  least,  I  am  anxious  to  try.”  [Laughter.] 

The  VICE  PRESIDENT.  The  galleries  must  preserve  order. 

Mr.  BORAH.  Mr.  President,  some  of  us  declare  that  this 
proposition  tears  down  the  farmer’s  fence.  We  say  furthermore 
that  we  do  not  want  two  farms  made  into  one.  If  you  want  to 
do  so,  all  right,  go  ahead ;  but  let  us  make  no  mistake  about 
what  we  are  doing.  Let  us  not  try  to  fool  ourselves  or  anyone 
else. 

What  do  other  countries  think  about  it,  Mr.  President?  I 
should  like  to  call  in  outside  witnesses,  notwithstanding  the  very 
profound  respect  that  I  have  for  the  ex-President.  The  English 
press,  we  are  informed  in  so  far  as  it  has  commented  upon  this 
subject  at  all,  has  regarded  it  as  an  abrogation  of  the  Monroe 
doctrine.  Mr.  Lloyd-George  said  in  the  very  beginning  of  these 
conferences  that  Great  Britain  could  concede  much  to  the 
United  States  if,  as  the  result,  they  were  to  draw  the  United 
States  out  of  her  isolation  and  away  from  her  traditional  foreign 
policies.  Japan  has  practically  announced  semiofficially  that  it 
is  the  abolishment  of  the  Monroe  doctrine.  The  Brazilian  Min¬ 
ister  at  The  Hague  has  announced  that  it  is  the  end  of  the 
Monroe  doctrine.  Why  leave  it  in  doubt?  Do  you  Senators,  or 
those  who  are  in  favor  of  the  league  of  nations,  want  to  destroy 
the  Monroe  doctrine?  If  you  do  not,  why  leave  it  in  doubt? 
Why  leave  it  to  the  construction  of  European  diplomats  sitting 
behind  closed  doors?  By  the  insertion  of  three  lines  in  this  con¬ 
stitution  you  can  place  it  beyond  peradventure,  beyond  •  conten¬ 
tion  or  cavil.  The  question  which  I  submit  now  is,  if  you  are 
unwilling  to  do  this,  is  it  not  proof  conclusive  that  you  intend  to 
destroy  the  policy  and  wipe  out  this  long-standing  doctrine? 

Let  us  go  to  another  feature  of  this  league.  I  am  not  here 
to-day  to  criticize  in  any  wayveither  directly  or  by  inference, 
the  great  English  nation  or  the  great  English  people.  They  are 
among,  not  excepting  our  own,  the  most  powerful  and  admirable 
people  upon  the  globe.  Every  man  must  pay  his  profound  re¬ 
spect  to  their  genius  and  to  their  capacity  for  Government  and 
for  mastery  of  great  problems.  But  when  we  come  to  deal  .with 
England,  we  must  deal  with  her  intelligently  and  with  a  due 
regard  for  our  own  interests  and  our  own  rights,  for  one  of  the 
distinguishing  characteristics  of  that  proud  nation  is  that 
106587—19309 


i 


12 


England  always  looks  after  England’s  interests.  I  admire  her 

f°  Her 'national  spirit  never  fails  her.  The  talents  and  genius 
of  her  statesmen  never  betray  her.  She  has  signed  many  treaties 
which  have  been  worthless  in  the  hour  of  peril.  She  lias  entered 
into  many  leagues  and  combinations  which  have  dissolved,  but 
her  proud  national  spirit  never  forsakes  her.  Ultimately  she 
relies  upon  this  instead  of  treaties  and  leagues.  She  has  passed 
through  many  a  crisis,  she  has  seen  dark  hours ;  but  in  every 
crisis  however  severe,  and  in  the  darkest  hour  every  English¬ 
man  is  expected  to  do  his  duty  and  does  it.  I  admire  her  for 
her  national  spirit,  for  her  vigilance  in  guarding  the  interests  of 

Mr  President,  this  constitution  of 'the  league  of  nations  is 
the  greatest  triumph  for  English  diplomacy  in  three  centuries  of 
English  diplomatic  life.  This  constitution,  in  the  first  place,  is 
lifted  almost  bodily,  as  you  will  see  if  you  will  compare  the 
two,  from  the  constitution  proposed  in  January  by  Gen  Smuts. 
There  is  not  an  organic,  a  vital  principle  incorporated  in  this 
constitution  that  is  not  found  in  Gen.  Smuts’s  constitution.  As 
is  known  to  all,  Gen.  Smuts,  a  South  African,  is  one  of  the 
most  remarkable  men  under  the  English  rule  to-day.  That 
you  may  not  think  I  am  stating  it  strongly,  let  me  read  a  word 
from  the  London  Times  on  the  second  day  after  this  constitu¬ 
tion  was  adapted:  . 

The  project,  if  not  the  same  as  that'  outlined  by  Gen* 
like  it  as  its  brother.  *  *  *  It  is  a  cause  for  legitimate  pride  to 

recognize  in  the  covenant  so  much  of  the  work  of  Englishmen.  .  , 

It  is  again  a  source  of  legitimate  pride  to  Englishmen  that  article 
19  in  the  covenant  might  almost  be  taken  as  an  exposition  of  the 
principles  animating  thl  relations  of  Great  Britain  with  India  and 
the  dominions. 

Listen  to  this  language— 

That  the  dominions  are  in  this  document  recognized  as  nations 
before  the  world  is  also  a  fact  of  profound  significance  in  the  history 
of  these  relations. 

The  gentleman  who  wrote  that  editorial  had  not  acquired 
the  capacity  of  using  language  to  conceal  his  thoughts;  lie 
labored  under  the  disadvantage  of  having  to  use  language  to 
convey  his  thoughts.  The  fact  that  the  dominions  of  Great 
Britain  and  her  colonies  are  recognized  as  nations  is  a  matter 
of  “  profound  significance.”  Yes ;  when  they  finally  settle 
dowrn  to  business  England  will  have  one  vote,  Canada  one  vote, 
New  Zealand  one  vote,  Australia  one  vote,  and  South  Africa 
one  vote,  whilst  the  American  Nation,  brought  into  being  by 
our  fathers  at  so  much  cost  of  blood  and  treasure  and  pie- 
served  through  the  century  by  the  vigilance  and  sacrifice  of 
our  forbears,  this  Nation  with  all  her  wealth  and.  resources 
will  have  one  vote.  In  both  the  executive  council  and  the 
delegate  body  the  same  proportion  obtains,  and  those  two 
bodies  direct,  dominate,  and  mark  out  the  policy  of  this  entire 
program,  whatever  it  is  to  be,  under  the  league.  A  matter  of 
“  profound  significance  !  ” 

I  ask  you  who  are  in  favor  of  this  league,  are  you  willing 
to  give  to  any  nation  five  votes  against  our  one?  Do  you 
presume  that  the  questions  of  interest,  of  ambition,  of  selfish¬ 
ness,  of  caprice,  of  humor  will  not  arise  in  the  future?  Have 
they  not  already,  in  a  proper  way,  but  none  the  less  in  an 
10G587— 19309 


« 


13 


unmistakable  way,  made  their  appearance  since  the  armistice 
was  signed?  Are  we  not  already  advised  that  we  must  use 
the  same  intelligence,  the  same  foresight,  the  same  prevision, 
and  the  same  patriotism  that  our  fathers  used  against  the  in¬ 
herent,  the  inevitable  selfishness  of  all  nations?  Yet  we  are 
seriously  proposing  that  we  shall  join  a  league  whose  consti¬ 
tutional  powers  shall  determine — what?  Shall  determine  poli¬ 
cies,  politic  and  economic,  upon  the  two  continents  and  shall 
give  to  our  greatest  commercial  rival  five  votes  to  our  one. 

_  Mr.  President,  I  have  called  attention  to  some  of  the  obliga¬ 
tions  which  we  assume.  Let  me  repeat  a  single  statement.  You 
have  now  observed  the  number  of  votes  in  the  executive  coun¬ 
cil,  but  thaf  is  not  all.  There  are  Italy  and  Japan  associated 
with  England,  and  more  nearly  like  her  in  their  systems  and 
in  their  policies  than  they -  are  like  the  United  States.  There 
are  already  treaties  between  those  nations  and  England,  which 
Mr.  Balfour  frankly  says  are  not  to  be  abrogated:  in  other 
words,  we  are  in  the  very  beginning  put  up  not  only  against 
this  extraordinary  vote  by  one  nation  but  we  have  the  disad¬ 
vantage  of  contending  against  a  system,  which  system  covers 
other  nations  as  well  as  that  of  Great  Britain, 
s  We  all  want  the  friendship  and  the  respect  of  and  future  ami¬ 
cable  relations  between  Great  Britain  and  this  country.  That 
also  was  Washington’s  wish ;  that  was  Jefferson’s  wish  ;  that  was 
also  Lincoln’s  wish;  but  never  for  a  moment  did  they  sur¬ 
render  any  power  or  any  authority  or  compromise  their  capacity 
in  any  way  to  take  care  of  the  situation  in  case  there  should  not 
be  an  agreement  between  the  two  powers. 

What  has  England  given  up  in  this  league  of  nations?  What 
has  she  surrendered?  Will  some  one  advise  me?  Did  she  sur¬ 
render  the  freedom  of  the  seas?  That  was  pushed  aside  at  the 
first  meetings  of  the  conference  as  not  subject  to  its  jurisdic¬ 
tion.  Has  she  surrendered  her  claim  for  the  largest  navy? 
What  has  she  surrendered? 

On  the  other  hand,  we  have  surrendered  the  traditional  for¬ 
eign  policy  of  this  country,  which  has  been  established  for  100 
years ;  and  we  have  gone  behind  these  powers  and  placed  at 
their  disposal  our  finances,  our  man  power,  and  our  full  capacity 
to  guarantee  the  integrity  of  their  possessions  all  over  the  globe. 
Is  it  an  even  balance,  is  it  an  equitable,  is  it  an  honest  arrange¬ 
ment  between  these  great  powers  and  the  United  States? 

I  come  now  to  another  feature,  which  to  me  is  even  more 
interesting,  more  menacing,  than  those  over  which  we  have 
passed.  Conceal  it  as  you  may,  disguise  it  as  some  will  attempt 
to  do,  this  is  the  first  step  in  internationalism  and  the  first  dis¬ 
tinct  effort  to  sterilize  nationalism.  This  is  a  recognized  fact, 
tacitly  admitted  by  all  who  support  it  aqd  expressly  admitted 
by  many,  that  the  national  State  has  broken  down  and  that 
we  must  now  depend  upon  the  international  State  and  inter¬ 
national  power  in  order  to  preserve  our  interests  and  our  civi¬ 
lization.  The  national  State  can  no  longer  serve  the  cause  of 
civilization,  and  therefore  we  must  resort  to  the  international 
State.  That  is  disclosed  in  every  line  and  paragraph  of  this 
instrument.  It  begins  with  the  preamble  and  ends  with  the  last 
article — a  recognition  that  internationalism  must  take  the  place 
of  nationalism. 

106587—19309 


14 


May  I  call  attention  to  a  statement  from  perhaps  the  most 
famous  internationalist  now  living.  I  read  from  a  book  en¬ 
titled  “  The  Bolsheviki  and  World  Peace,”  by  Trotzky.  He 
says : 

The  present  war  is  at  bottom  a  revolt  of  the  forces  of  production 
against  the  political  form  of  nation  and  State.  It  means  the  collapse 
of  the  national  State  as  an  independent  economic  unit. 

In  another  paragraph : 

The  war  proclaims  the  downfall  of  the  national  state.  *  *  * 

We  Russian  Socialists  stand  firmly  on  the  ground  of  internationalism. 

*  *  The  German  social  democracy  was  to  us  not  only  a  party 

of  the  international — it  was  the  party  par  excellence. 

Again,  he  declares: 

The  present  war  signalizes  the  collapse  of  the  national  states. 

He  proceeds  to  argue  that  the  only  thing  which  can  take  the 
place  of  the  national  state  is  internationalism,  to  international¬ 
ize  our  governments,  internationalize  our  power,  internation¬ 
alize  production,  internationalize  our  economic  capacity,  and 
become  an  international  state  the  world  over.  That  is  at  the 
bottom  of  this  entire  procedure,  whether  consciously  or  uncon¬ 
sciously,  upon  the  part  of  those  who  are  advocating  it.  It  will 
be  the  fruit  of  this  effort  if  it  succeeds — the  dead  sea  fruit 
for  the  common  people  everywhere.  It  is  a  distinct  announce¬ 
ment  that  the  intense  nationalism  of  Washington,  the  intense 
nationalism  of  Lincoln,  can  no  longer '  serve  the  cause  of  the 
American  people,  and  that  we  must  internationalize  and  place 
the  sovoreign  powers  of  this  Government  to  make  war  and 
control  our  economic  forces  in  an  international  tribunal. 

A.  few  days  ago  one  of  the  boldest  and  most  brilliant  inter¬ 
nationalists  of  this  country — a  man,  no  doubt,  who  believes  in 
it  as  firmly  as  I  believe  in  nationalism — wrote  this  paragraph : 

i  JSeu£;atJlAT0f  CoL  Roosevelt  was  a  shock,  I  think,  to  everybody  who 
if  S'  “an  ever  Jived  who  had  more  fun  in  61  years  ;  and  yet 
inp-  hm*  A  Wlta  th-at  la?t  f£antic  reiteration  of  Americanism  and  noth¬ 
ing  but  Americanism,  fresh  from  his  pen.  was  like  a  symbol  of  the 
of  life.  The  boyish  magnetism  is  all  gone  out  of  those  words 
They  die  in  the  dawn  of  revolutionary  internationalism. 

.  ^  sometimes  wonder,  Can  it  be  true?  Are  we,  indeed  yield¬ 
ing  our  Americanism  before  the  onrushing  tide  of  revolutionary 
internationalism?  Did  the  death  of  this  undaunted  advocate  of 
Amencan  nationalism  mark  an  epoch  in  the  fearful,  damnable 
downward  trend?  ’ 

Yes,  Mr.  President,  this  many-sided  man  touched  life  at 
every  point,  and  sometimes  seemed  inconsistent ;  but  there  was 
one  supreme  passion  which  gave  simplicity  and  singleness  of 
purpose  to  all  lie  said  or  did — his  abounding  Americanism.  In 
tins  era  of  national  infidelity  let  us  be  deeply  grateful  for  this. 
Though  he  had  erred  a  thousand  times,  and  grievously  erred 
we  would  stiU  pay  sincere  tribute  to  his  memory  for  holding 
aloft  at  ail  times,  and  especially  in  the  world’s  greatest  tur¬ 
moil,  the  banner  of  the  true  faith.  Huntsman,  plainsman,  au- 
th°£  political  leader,  governor,  Vice  President,  President,  and 
ex-President,  this  was  always  the  directing  and  dominating 
theme.  Even  in  his  full,  rich  life,  replete  with  noble  deeds 
a°d  brilliant  achievements,  it  runs  like  a  golden  thread  through 
all  of  the  bewildering  activities  of  his  wide-ranging  genius 
It  gave  consistency  to  every  change  of  view  and  justified  what 
sometimes  seemed  his  merciless  intolerance.  When  the  final 
106587 — 19309 


15 


estimate  is  placed  upon  bis  career,  and  all  ilia  services  to  his 
fellows  are  weighed  and  judged,  his  embodiment  of  the  na¬ 
tional  spirit,  his  vigilant  defense  of  our  national  integrity, 
his  exemplification  of  our  national  ideals  will  distinguish  him, 
as  says  in  effect  this  internationalist,  from  all  the  men  of  his 
day  and  generation. 

Mr.  President,  I  am  not  a  pessimist.  I  find  neither  solace 
nor  guidance  in  the  doleful  doctrine.  But  who  will  gainsay 
that  we  have  reached  a  supreme  hour  in  the  history  of  the 
Republic  he  loved?  There  is  not  a  Government  in  existence 
to-day  but  feels  the  strain  of  those  inscrutable  forces  which 
are  working  their  willful  way  through  all  the  established  in¬ 
stitutions  of  men.  Church  and  creed,  ancient  governments  and 
new,  despotic  and  liberal,  order  and  law,  at  this  time  stand 
under  challenge.  Hunger  and  disease,  business  anxiety,  and  in¬ 
dustrial  unrest  threaten  to  demobilize  the  moral  forces  of  organ¬ 
ized  society.  In  all  of  this  turmoil  and  strife,  in  all  this  chaos  of 
despair  and  hope,  there  is  much  that  is  good  if  it  can  be  brought 
under  direction  and  subordinated  to  the  sway  of  reason.  At  the 
bottom  of  it  all  there  is  the  infinite  longing  of  oppressed  hu¬ 
manity  seeking  in  madness  to  be  rid  of  oppression  and  to  escape 
from  these  centuries  of  injustice.  How  shall  we  help  to  bring 
order  out  of  chaos?  Shall  we  do  so  by  becoming  less  or  more 
American?  Shall  we  entangle  and  embarrass  the  efforts  of  a 
powerful  and  independent  people,  or  shall  we  leave  them  in 
every  emergency  and  in  every  crisis  to  do  in  that  particular  hour 
and  in  that  supreme  moment  what  the  conscience  and  wisdom  of 
an  untrammeled  and  liberty -loving  people  shall  decide  is  wise  and 
just?  Or  shall  we  yoke  our  deliberations  to  forces  we  can  not 
control  and  leave  our  people  to  the  mercy  of  powers  which  may 
be  wholly  at  variance  with  dur  conception  of  duty?  I  may  be 
willing  to  help  my  neighbor,  though  he  be  improvident  or  un¬ 
fortunate,  but  I  do  not  necessarily  want  him  for  a  business 
partner.  I  may  be  willing  to  give  liberally  of  my  means,  of  my 
council  and  advice,  even  of  my  strength  or  blood,  to  protect  his 
family  from  attack  or  injustice,  but  I  do  not  want  him  placed 
in  a  position  where  he  may  decide  for  me  when  and  how  I  shall 
act  or  to  what  extent  I  shall  make  sacrifice.  I  do  not  want  this 
Republic,  its  intelligence,  and  its  patriotism,  its  free  people  and 
its  institutions  to  go  into  partnership  with  and  to  give  control 
of  the  partnership  to  those,  many  of  whom  have  no  conception 
of  our  civilization  and  no  true  insight  into  our  destiny.  What 
we  want  is  what  Roosevelt  taught  and  urged — a  free,  untram¬ 
meled  Nation,  imbued  anew  and  inspired  again  with  the  national 
spirit.  Not  isolation  but  freedom  to  do  as  our  own  people  think 
wise  and  just ;  not  isolation  but  simply  the  unembarrassed  and 
unentangled  freedom  of  a  great  Nation  to  determine  for  itself 
and  in  its  own  way  where  duty  lies  and  where  wisdom  calls. 
There  is  not  a  supreme  council  possible  of  creation  or  conceivable 
equal  in  wisdom,  in  conscience,  and  liumanitarianism  to  the 
wisdom  and  conscience  and  humanitarianism  of  the  hundred 
million  free  and  independent  liberty -loving  souls  to  whom  the 
living  God  has  intrusted  the  keeping  of  this  Nation.  The  mo¬ 
ment  this  Republic  comes  to  any  other  conclusion  it  has  for¬ 
feited  its  right  to  live  as  an  independent  and  self-respecting 
Republic. 

106587—19309 


16 


It  was  not,  one  likes  to  believe,  a  mere  incident,  but  a  sig¬ 
nificant  though  strangely  arranged  fact  that  the  last  message 
to  the  American  people  from  the  illustrious  dead  who,  t  e 
internationalists  tell  us,  was  the  last  of  the  great  Americans, 
should  have  been  upon  this  particular  subject  I  believe  it  was 
the  night  of  his  death  that  this  message  which  I  shall  now  lead 
to  you  was  read  at  a  public  meeting  to  which  he  had  been  in¬ 
vited  but  was  unable  to  attend : 

Anv  man  who  says  he  is  an  American  but  something  else  also 
isn’t  'an  American  at  all.  We  have  room  for  hut  one  flag,  the  American 

flaV  ?  *.  we  nave  room  for  but  one  laug!lage'  an,d,  that  13 

Fn^lish  language:  for  we  intend  to  see  that  the  crucible  turns  our 
people  out  as  Americans,  of  American  nationality,  and  not  as  dwellers 
in  a  polvglot  boarding  house!  and  we  have  room  for  but  one  soul 
loyalty  to  the  American  people. 

Let  us  inscribe  this  upon  our  banner  and  hang  it  upon  the 
outer  wall.  In  all  the  vicissitudes  of  our  national  life,  in  all 
the  duties  which  may  come  to  us  as  a  people,  in  all  the  future, 
filled,  as  it  will  be,  with  profound  and  perplexing  problems,  let 
us  cling  uncompromisingly  to  this  holy  creed.  In  these  times, 
when  ancient  faiths  are  disappearing  and  governments  are 
crumbling,  when  institutions  are  yielding  to  the  tread  of  the 
mad  hosts  of  disorder,  let  us  take  our  stand  on  the  side  of 
orderly  liberty,  on  the  side  of  constitutional  government.  Let 
us  range  ourselves  along  with  Washington  and  Jefferson  and 
Jackson  and  Lincoln  and  Roosevelt.  Let  us  be  true  to  our¬ 
selves  ;  and,  whatever  the  obligations  of  the  future,  we  can  not 
then  be  false  to  others. 

10G587— 19309 


o 


